President Bush - about bush

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 15:39:37

I am worried about him selling the technology to terrorists, or giving a weapon to them.

Giving technology to terrorists is practically the same as using that technology itself. The US is responsible for bin Laden in much the same way Hussain would be responsible for terrorists acquiring WMDs, if he sold them to terrorists. So I don't see Hussain taking such an irrational risk. North Korea can, North Korea doesn't have a lot natural wealth like oil. North Korea has nothing to lose. Iraq does.

Iraq will make no ties to bin Laden. Iraqi's may secretly (though some publicly) sympathize on some level with bin Laden, but they will not make a physical connection. This is why Saddam has publically decried bin Laden for using Iraq as an excuse to go and blow people up. He doesn't want to have any association with bin Laden. It would only justify an attack by the US against the War on Terrorism.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 15:42:35

That begs a question, though. Why is it that Saudia Arabia, a country with many ties to bin Laden, isn't even considered a terrorist state, whereas one with no ties is?

soph · 2002-12-18 15:42:50

caltech, there is nothing honorable about war. my grandfather had half his leg blown off by a landmine in ww2. im sure he would trade his purple heart for his leg.

im older than you, and im closer to military age, and trust me, we have no perspective. we werent living when men were coming home in body bags during the vietnam war. we treat violence as a game. there are people in the world who know what true suffering is, who dont fear death. americans cant understand this, and probably never will.

look at it from the standpoint of the terrorists. many of them are brainwashed to believe that we have caused all their suffering. 3,000 people to them is nothing. what would you do if someone was starving you, or invading your country? let them?

im not condoning it, but you just cant look at it from one side of an argument. and there are many things that you, like me, dont understand. theres no shame in that, but dont act as if you do.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-18 15:43:05

Where did I say he would give the technology to Osama bin Laden or al Qaida? There are HUNDREDS of terrorists rings that could use that weapon very easily...

soph · 2002-12-18 15:43:41

josh, oil.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 15:48:55

bin Laden is the guy we blame the War on Terrorism on, Cal. Even if some other group blows something up (like the Bali group), we associate it with bin Laden. So sure, you can replace ?bin Laden? with ?any terrorist cell? and it will work. The point is that if the US can associate Iraq with the War on Terrorism (which they can't), it won't bode well for Iraq. So Iraq isn't going to let that happen.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-18 15:53:32

There isn't honor in war itself, but there is in defending your country when it calls for your service. Giving up your leg in defense of your country is one of the greatest sacrifices anyone can make, aside from dying, and I am sure that every American appreciates the sacrifice he and millions of others made to defend the world.

And don't speak for me in saying that we have no perspective. Don't get me wrong; war is a terrible thing. But there are some cases when it is the only thing that can be done to stop something. Diplomacy may not work out, and war will be our last resort.

Soph, you may be able to pussyfoot around military service, and I hope you lead a short, miserable life. There are a great deal of Americans, myself for one, who would very quickly pick up a gun to defend our great nation. And don't think I'm some kind of hick, either. I'm a 4.0 student who wants to major in Astronomy at CalTech. Do you think it wouldn't hurt to rest of my life to leave home at 18 and fight overseas? It would be the final nail in my career's coffin. But that's the sacrifce you have to make to continue living in this wonderful, free country.

soph · 2002-12-18 16:10:50

diplomacy will only work when you give it an honest effort.

when you learn to read what somebody says, and understand the meaning, instead of what you want to see, you will get a lot more respect. having a big mouth will get you nowhere.

im a 4.0 gpa student too. ive got a 187 iq. i dont feel the need to brag about it. you want to go to war against a country that hasnt harmed us. whats so different about our bullying against iraq than terrorists blowing up our buildings? unless bush actually tries a diplomatic solution, truly tries, then there is no difference. we may be justified in going to war with iraq, when, and only when, we find the evidence bush has claimed is there. we havent found it yet.

and just because someone doesnt share your view, doesnt mean they should lead a short, miserable life. if you go around with that view, nobody will take you seriously in the real world. when did i ever say that i wasnt willing to die for my country? never. i am the most patriotic person in my family. but wasting lives to fight an unjustified war, that is far worse than anything iraq has done to us.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-18 16:23:11

when you learn to read what somebody says, and understand the meaning, instead of what you want to see, you will get a lot more respect. having a big mouth will get you nowhere.
im a 4.0 gpa student too. ive got a 187 iq. i dont feel the need to brag about it. you want to go to war against a country that hasnt harmed us. whats so different about our bullying against iraq than terrorists blowing up our buildings? unless bush actually tries a diplomatic solution, truly tries, then there is no difference. we may be justified in going to war with iraq, when, and only when, we find the evidence bush has claimed is there. we havent found it yet.

Soph, what have I said all along? I've told you all, very clearly (and you can look at my earliest posts and see this) that we should only fight this war IF the UN weapons inspectors find a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. If there isn't, we won't fight this war.

Has Bush gone willy-nilly fighting battles in the region? NO! He prepares his case in front of the world, with all of his cards on the table, and waits to find evidence. The fact is, he HASN'T gone to war yet! He's waiting for a good reason to, just like everyone else. Don't say he's a blood-thirsty tyrant when he uses diplomacy first to correct problems! Sure, he could have nuke Baghdad 4 months ago, but did he? NO!

And I wasn't bragging about my grades, I was just saying that I'm not a "John Deere" American with 12 shotguns and a fierce hatred for all who aren't just like him.

when did i ever say that i wasnt willing to die for my country? never. i am the most patriotic person in my family.

Thank you for clarifying that. I apologize if I offended you.

soph · 2002-12-18 16:30:23

Has Bush gone willy-nilly fighting battles in the region? NO! He prepares his case in front of the world, with all of his cards on the table, and waits to find evidence. The fact is, he HASN'T gone to war yet! He's waiting for a good reason to, just like everyone else. Don't say he's a blood-thirsty tyrant when he uses diplomacy first to correct problems!

actually, yes. he said he was going to war 9 months ago. then, when mounting political pressure made that impossible, he had to opt for a semi-diplomatic route. now, he wants war again. if you follow his words and actions, thats just what hes done. his administration has demanded that iraq tell the world it has wmd's. so, iraq is damned whatever it does.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 16:52:59

Cal, he couldn't go to war. The international community wouldn't let him. It would have been worse than Vietnam from a decision perspective. Indeed, soph is right, his inital desires were to go unilaterally with maybe Britian, and his reasons were ?justified? by hearsay. Like I said in this very thread, he tried several times to ?create? evidence where there was none.

It was only after political pressure forced him to go about it die he approach it the just way.

But don't think Iraq is screwed, soph. This is, like I said before, the information age. That Venezuelan coup would have worked 30 years ago when people were clueless about practically everything, but these days people can be informed as to what's going on quite quickly (misinformation can spread too, but still, the real information can be seeived out).

Iraq will comply with the inspections, and will drop off the spotlight at least until the 2004 elections.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-18 20:59:12

But the question I asked was, HAS BUSH GONE WILLY-NILLY FIGHTING WARS IN THE REGION? NO! You don't know his intentions, and you certainly don't know when he's bluffing to get something completely different accomplished.

Until President Bush attacks an innocent nation that has complied with UN regulations, you have NOTHING on him but circumstantial evidence, and possible motives. Let's judge a man by his actions, not his words.

Oh, and Bush COULD have gone to war if he wanted to. The US doesn't have to pay attention to the international community, because we ARE the international community. We are the only superpower. We can do whatever we want, but we choose not to.

Congress even gave Bush BROADER powers to declare and wage war. Who elected those congressional members? THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS! The democrats only voted pro on the issue because they knew they would never make the 2002 elections if they didn't (even that didn't save the Senate majority.) Don't drag the 2000 presidential race into this... the fact is, Bush was elected in the way our Constitution lays it out, and the electoral college, whether you like it or not, keeps the votes from smaller areas from being neglected over population centers.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-18 21:00:35

But the question I asked was, HAS BUSH GONE WILLY-NILLY FIGHTING WARS IN THE REGION? NO! You don't know his intentions, and you certainly don't know when he's bluffing to get something completely different accomplished.

Until President Bush attacks an innocent nation that has complied with UN regulations, you have NOTHING on him but circumstantial evidence, and possible motives. Let's judge a man by his actions, not his words.

Oh, and Bush COULD have gone to war if he wanted to. The US doesn't have to pay attention to the international community, because we ARE the international community. We are the only superpower. We can do whatever we want, but we choose not to.

Congress even gave Bush BROADER powers to declare and wage war. Has he even used those powers yet? NO! Could he have waged a bloody, merciless war in the Middle East? YES! But has he done it yet? NO! Who elected those congressional members? THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS! The democrats only voted pro on the issue because they knew they would never make the 2002 elections if they didn't (even that didn't save the Senate majority.) Don't drag the 2000 presidential race into this... the fact is, Bush was elected in the way our Constitution lays it out, and the electoral college, whether you like it or not, keeps the votes from smaller areas from being neglected over population centers.

soph · 2002-12-18 21:14:46

you really have no clue about the importance of diplomacy. the US cant do everything unilaterally. 50 years ago we could have. now we arent self-sufficient. we need things. we make a small fraction of what we consume. especially oil. saudi arabia could cut off our oil with a snap.

if he could have gone to war, he would have. he also wants to get re-elected, you know.

soph · 2002-12-18 21:15:59

china is a superpower too, you might want to ignore that, but they are. russia still has nuclear capabilities. please, youre exemplifying the hated arrogant american stereotype.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-18 21:21:08

if he could have gone to war, he would have.

Once again, you're assuming intentions and you don't really know all the pieces of the puzzle. No one except for high ranking members of government have the big picture.

you really have no clue about the importance of diplomacy. the US cant do everything unilaterally. 50 years ago we could have. now we arent self-sufficient. we need things. we make a small fraction of what we consume. especially oil. saudi arabia could cut off our oil with a snap.

If Saudi Arabia cut off our oil, we could reclaim it in just as quick of a snap. Would we do it? NO! Because the US (and President Bush) don't go willy-nilly declaring war. We do have the power to force every nation to our will. You can't name one that we can't. Russia and China, as you've admitted, are dependent on our money, and the other nations need our backing in certain areas. The US is THE superpower, and if we wanted to, we could do EVERYTHING unilaterally. But do we? No...

soph · 2002-12-18 21:25:35

we couldnt. you really have a lot to learn.

how could 300 million people subjugate 5 billion people? the simple math is IMPOSSIBLE. theres no way. we constitute less than 7% of the worlds population. with the weaponry and resources that are lying around, it would never work.

and you try holding an american occupied territory in the middle east. it would be like a magnet for terrorism. and they wouldnt even have to overcome those nasty obstacles like travel and the INS.

soph · 2002-12-18 21:26:55

oh, and bush said he wanted to go to war. am i to assume he was lying? that our president is untrustworthy?

not that i dont already, hes an idiot on everything from the environment to foreign policy, but thats beside the point.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 21:30:06

Cal, Bush got his mandate, sure, because, as you said, the sorry Democrats didn't have an ounce of balls about them. They deserved to lose the 2002 elections. But doesn't that bring up a good point? You suggested that Congress represented a majority of Americans... since these sorry Democrats voted politically rather than representatively, it's fair to say that a majority of Americans don't want to go to war with Iraq despite Bush's little mandate. I mean, c'mon, we had half a million marching in DC for crying out loud. This is not good for Bush in the long run. Bush has to apease the majority of Americans who don't want a unilateral war with Iraq. Fact.

It would have been, and still would be, political suicide to attack Iraq unilaterally. So he goes to the UN. This brings up a huge problem, because he has no evidence suggesting that Iraq has WMDs. His ?mandate? just disappeared. Before, he could have gone on the past resolutions, and pretended like we actually had something (much like how past wars have been fought- over lies and fabrications), but now it's back in the UNs court. Now he can't even consider attacking until the UN declares that Iraq has WMDs, and that isn't going to happen.

And yes, you're right, we can do whatever we want. As shown by the Friendly Dictator Trading Cards. That's not what's disputed here. What's being disputed is whether or not Bush has reason to do whatever he wants (ie, attack Iraq unilaterally, without evidence, as he suggested initally).

I don't know what he personally feels inside about attacking Iraq, but I've shown, rather conclusively, that the whole Iraq situation was most likely political. It got them votes, you can't deny that.

The American President is the most powerful man in the world. We are not questioning what he can and can not do from a power perspective. We're questioning what he would and would not do from a political perspective. And he wouldn't attack Iraq. You need evidence to attack, something the US does not have, yet Bush claimed for weeks that he did (like I pointed out, even embarrassing poor Tony Blair in the process).

Really, this argument is going into circles. If you don't want to debate the crux of the argument, I don't know what to say.

And I find it funny that Congress gets its mandate by a majority vote, but the President doesn't, don't you? Funny, Bush didn't get the majority of the votes.

soph · 2002-12-18 21:32:45

no...alan greenspan is the most powerful man in the world.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 21:33:54

If Saudi Arabia cut off our oil, we could reclaim it in just as quick of a snap. Would we do it? NO!

Bullshit, Saudi Arabia has more ties to terrorism than Iraq (ie, many, verses none). If Saudi Arabia had the foolishness to cut us off, we'd suddenly have more than enough ?evidence? to destory their whole country. Saudi Arabia would then become a nice vacation spot for rich Americans who like warm climates.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-18 21:35:01

no...alan greenspan is the most powerful man in the world.

No... Karl Rove is.

soph · 2002-12-18 21:37:25

maybe when greenspan retires...greenspan was a financial genius like no other. under greenspan...well, lets just say he covered up a lot of financial blunders by presidents in his time.

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-18 21:39:51

We had reason to believe that Iraq had nuclear weapons, so instead of barging in unilaterally, we went to the UN and asked that they oversee weapons inspections.

And if the Republican party got votes over the Iraq issue, that means a MAJORITY OF VOTING AMERICANS SUPPORTED THE WAR, OR ELSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE VOTED FOR THEM!

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-18 21:44:35

Oh, and on Soph's point about war with the world, we have the technology to destroy everyone. I don't know if this figure still stands, but the US has enough nuclear devices to destroy the world 4(?) times over. We could launch missiles to the world powers like Russia and China, and drop thermonuclear devices from bombers 50,000 feet above the target.

Would I fight the world on a big battlefield? No. We couldn't do that. There are simply too many people. But could we hit them from behind with a broken bottle? Yes.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2002-12-18 15:39:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#277 2002-12-18 15:42:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

#278 2002-12-18 15:42:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

#279 2002-12-18 15:43:05

Re: President Bush - about bush

#280 2002-12-18 15:43:41

Re: President Bush - about bush

#281 2002-12-18 15:48:55

Re: President Bush - about bush

#282 2002-12-18 15:53:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#283 2002-12-18 16:10:50

Re: President Bush - about bush

#284 2002-12-18 16:23:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#285 2002-12-18 16:30:23

Re: President Bush - about bush

#286 2002-12-18 16:52:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#287 2002-12-18 20:59:12

Re: President Bush - about bush

#288 2002-12-18 21:00:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

#289 2002-12-18 21:14:46

Re: President Bush - about bush

#290 2002-12-18 21:15:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#291 2002-12-18 21:21:08

Re: President Bush - about bush

#292 2002-12-18 21:25:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

#293 2002-12-18 21:26:55

Re: President Bush - about bush

#294 2002-12-18 21:30:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#295 2002-12-18 21:32:45

Re: President Bush - about bush

#296 2002-12-18 21:33:54

Re: President Bush - about bush

#297 2002-12-18 21:35:01

Re: President Bush - about bush

#298 2002-12-18 21:37:25

Re: President Bush - about bush

#299 2002-12-18 21:39:51

Re: President Bush - about bush

#300 2002-12-18 21:44:35

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer